document_title: Monterey Pop Festival

question_text: which group gained their first recording contract after appearing at monterey

root

text: Monterey Pop Festival

text: The festival[edit]

text: The festival was planned in seven weeks by John Phillips of the Mamas & the Papas, record producer Lou Adler, Alan Pariser and publicist Derek Taylor. Monterey and Big Sur had been known as the site for the long-running Monterey Jazz Festival and Big Sur Folk Festival; the promoters saw the Monterey Pop festival as a way to validate rock music as an art form in the way in which jazz and folk were regarded.[16] The organizers succeeded beyond all expectations.

tag: p

text: The artists performed for free with all revenue donated to charity, except for Ravi Shankar, who was paid $3,000 for his afternoon-long performance on the sitar. Country Joe and the Fish were paid $5,000 not by the festival itself, but from revenue generated from the D.A. Pennebaker documentary.[17] The artists did however have their flights and accommodation paid for. Apart from Shankar, each act was given up to 40 minutes for their performance. Several ended their sets earlier, including the Who, who played for only 25 minutes.

text: Lou Adler later reflected:

text: [O]ur idea for Monterey was to provide the best of everything – sound equipment, sleeping and eating accommodations, transportation – services that had never been provided for the artist before Monterey ... We set up an on-site first aid clinic, because we knew there would be a need for medical supervision and that we would encounter drug-related problems. We didn't want people who got themselves into trouble and needed medical attention to go untreated. Nor did we want their problems to ruin or in any way disturb other people or disrupt the music ... Our security worked with the Monterey police. The local law enforcement authorities never expected to like the people they came in contact with as much as they did. They never expected the spirit of 'Music, Love and Flowers' to take over to the point where they'd allow themselves to be festooned with flowers.

text: Monterey's bill boasted a lineup that put established stars like the Mamas and the Papas, Simon & Garfunkel and the Byrds alongside groundbreaking new acts from the UK and the US.

text: The song "San Francisco (Be Sure to Wear Flowers in Your Hair)" was written by Phillips and sung by McKenzie, released in May 1967, to promote the event.[18]

text: Performances[edit]

text: Jefferson Airplane[edit]

text: With two huge singles behind them, Jefferson Airplane was one of the major attractions of the festival, having built up a large following on the West Coast.

text: The Who[edit]

text: Although already a big act in the UK, and now gaining some attention in the US after playing some New York dates two months earlier, the Who were propelled into the American mainstream at Monterey. The band used rented Vox amps for their set, which were not as powerful as their regular Sound City amps which they had left in England to save shipping costs. At the end of their frenetic performance of "My Generation", the audience was stunned as guitarist Pete Townshend smashed his guitar, smoke bombs exploded behind the amps and frightened concert staff rushed onstage to retrieve expensive microphones. At the end of the mayhem, drummer Keith Moon kicked over his drum kit as the band exited the stage. During Jimi Hendrix' stay in England he and the Who had seen each other perform, they were both impressed with and intimidated by each other, so neither wanted to be upstaged by the other. They decided to toss a coin, with the Who ending up performing just before Hendrix.[19]

text: Grateful Dead[edit]

text: Michael Lydon, author of Flashbacks (2003) commented: "The Grateful Dead were beautiful. They did at top volume what Shankar had done softly. They played pure music, some of the best music of the concert. I have never heard anything in music that could be said to be qualitatively better than the performance of the Dead, Sunday night.[page needed] Jerry Garcia noted: "[The Who] smashing all their equipment. I mean, they did it so well. It looked so great. It was like, 'Wow, that is beautiful.' We went on. We played our little music. And it seemed so lame to me, at the time. And [Jimi Hendrix] was also beautiful and incredible and sounded great and looked great. I loved both acts. I sat there gape-jawed. They were wonderful."[citation needed]

text: The Jimi Hendrix Experience[edit]

text: Hendrix' use of extremely high volumes, the feedback this produced, and the combination of the two along with his dive-bombing use of the vibrato bar on his guitar, produced sounds that, with the exception of the British in attendance, none of the audience had ever heard before. This, along with his look, his clothing, and his erotic antics onstage, had an enormous impact on the audience. To take things further, aware of The Who's planned explosive finale, he asked around for a can of lighter fluid, which he placed behind one of his amplifier stacks before beginning his set. He ended his Monterey performance with an unpredictable version of "Wild Thing", which he capped by kneeling over his guitar, pouring lighter fluid over it, setting it on fire, and then smashing it onto the stage seven times before throwing its remains into the audience.[20] This performance put Hendrix on the map and generated an enormous amount of attention in the music press and newspapers alike.[21] Robert Christgau later wrote in The Village Voice of Hendrix's performance:

text: Music was a given for a Hendrix stuck with topping the Who's guitar-smashing tour de force. It's great sport to watch this outrageous scene-stealer wiggle his tongue, pick with his teeth, and set his axe on fire, but the showboating does distract from the history made that night—the dawning of an instrumental technique so effortlessly fecund and febrile that rock has yet to equal it, though hundreds of metal bands have gotten rich trying. Admittedly, nowhere else will you witness a Hendrix still uncertain of his divinity.[22]

text: Big Brother and the Holding Company (Janis Joplin)[edit]

text: Monterey Pop was also one of the earliest major public performances for Janis Joplin, who appeared as a member of Big Brother and the Holding Company. Joplin gave a provocative rendition of the song "Ball and Chain". Columbia Records signed Big Brother and the Holding Company on the basis of their performance at Monterey.[20]

text: Eric Burdon and the Animals[edit]

text: Eric Burdon changed gears with his performance at Monterey. After six years of playing with the original Animals as part of the British Invasion, and the breakup of that band, Eric assembled a new band, a "New Animals" and at the festival, they performed the seminal work "Paint It Black" which showcased Burdon's new style: anti-war, hard rock. Monterey affected his career intensely, as later captured in the song he wrote about it.

text: Otis Redding[edit]

text: Redding, backed by Booker T. & the MG's, was included on the bill through the efforts of promoter Jerry Wexler, who saw the festival as an opportunity to advance Redding's career.[20] Until that point, Redding had performed mainly for black audiences,[23] besides a few successful shows at the Whisky a Go Go. Redding's show, received well by the audience ("there is certainly more audible crowd participation in Redding's set than in any of the others filmed by Pennebaker that weekend") included "Respect" and a version of "Satisfaction".[24] The festival would be one of his last major performances. He died six months later in a plane crash at the age of 26.

text: Ravi Shankar[edit]

text: Ravi Shankar was another artist who was introduced to America at the Monterey festival. The Raga Dhun (Dadra and Fast Teental) (which was later miscredited as "Raga Bhimpalasi"), an excerpt from Shankar's four-hour performance at the 1967 Monterey Pop Festival, concluded the Monterey Pop film, introducing the artist to a new generation of music fans.

text: The Mamas & the Papas[edit]

text: The Mamas & the Papas closed the festival. They also brought on Scott McKenzie to play his John Phillips-written single "San Francisco, (Be Sure To Wear Flowers In Your Hair)". Their set included their biggest hits, "Monday, Monday" and "California Dreamin'". The song "Dancing in the Street", was the final song performed at the festival, with Mama Cass telling the audience "You're on your own".

text: Cancellations and no-shows[edit]

text: This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (June 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

tag: table

text: Several acts were also notable for their non-appearance.

text: The Beach Boys, who had been involved in the conception of the event[25] and were at one point scheduled to headline and close the show, failed to perform. This resulted from a number of issues plaguing the group. Carl Wilson was in a dispute with officials over his refusal to be drafted into military service during the Vietnam War. The group's new, radical album Smile had recently been aborted and remained unreleased, leaving band leader Brian Wilson in a state and unwilling or incapable of performing (he hadn't performed live with the group since late 1964, although he would do so in Honolulu, Hawaii in August 1967). Since Smile had not been released, the group felt their older material would not go over well with the audience. The cancellation permanently lowered their reputation and popularity in the US, which would contribute to their replacement album Smiley Smile charting lower than any other of their previous album releases.

text: The Beatles were rumored to appear because of the involvement of their press officer Derek Taylor, but they declined, since their music had become too complex to be performed live. Instead, at the instigation of Paul McCartney, the festival booked The Who and the Jimi Hendrix Experience. Over the weekend of the festival, the Beatles were in London, preparing for the 'Our World' television broadcast.

text: The Kinks were invited but could not get a work visa to enter the US because of a dispute with the American Federation of Musicians.[citation needed]

text: Donovan was refused a visa to enter the United States because of a 1966 drug bust.[25]

text: Captain Beefheart and the Magic Band was also invited to appear but, according to the liner notes for the CD reissue of their album Safe as Milk, the band turned the offer down at the insistence of guitarist Ry Cooder, who felt the group was not ready. However, Cooder has also claimed that at a warm-up show several days before, Beefheart refused to sing and jumped off the stage, leaving the band to play a mostly instrumental set. The guitarist said this was the reason he refused to play.

text: Dionne Warwick and the Impressions were advertised on some of the early posters for the event, but Warwick dropped out because of a conflict in booking that weekend. She was booked at the Fairmont Hotel; the hotel was reluctant to release her and it was thought that cancelling that appearance would negatively affect her career.

text: Bob Dylan did receive an invitation, but he declined due to the fact that he was still recovering from his motorcycle accident the previous year. Hendrix paid tribute to him by covering "Like a Rolling Stone".

text: The Mothers of Invention were invited to perform, but their leader Frank Zappa declined because of his refusal to share the stage with any of the San Francisco bands who he felt were inferior.

text: Even though the logo for the band Kaleidoscope is seen in the film as a pink sign just below the stage, the band did not perform at the Monterey Festival.

text: Although the Rolling Stones did not play, guitarist and founder Brian Jones attended and appeared on stage to introduce Hendrix. The group was on the short list of invitees, but was unable to get work visas because of the drug arrests of Mick Jagger and Keith Richards.

text: It was long rumored that Love had declined an invitation to Woodstock, but Mojo Magazine later confirmed that it was the Monterey Festival they had rejected.

text: The promoters also invited several Motown artists to perform and even were going to give the label's artists their own slot. However, Berry Gordy refused to let any of his acts appear, even though Smokey Robinson was on the board of directors.

text: The Monkees were the biggest-selling musical act in the United States in 1967 and were seriously considered to play, but after weeks of deliberation, John Phillips and Lou Adler decided not to invite them. However, group members Micky Dolenz (in full American Indian buckskins and headdress) and Peter Tork attended the festival and mingled with musicians backstage. Tork was asked to introduce Buffalo Springfield, his favorite group, for their set. Tork also introduced Lou Rawls and was involved in a bizarre incident where he walked out onstage in the middle of the Grateful Dead's set to try to stop fans from climbing on stage and dancing. Tork also informed the crowd that the Beatles were not at the festival in disguise.

text: According to Eric Clapton, Cream did not perform because the band's manager wanted to make a bigger splash for their American debut later that year. However, it has since been revealed that the band were not considered by the festival organizers.

text: The Doors also were not invited, even though they were a successful group by this time. Keyboardist Ray Manzarek later said “We were quite angry wondering why the Association was at the Monterey Pop Festival, and The Doors were not”.

text: The Rascals were also invited, but according to Gene Cornish the band had already been booked to play another gig that same weekend.

text: Influence[edit]

text: Music writer Rusty DeSoto argues that pop music history tends to downplay the importance of Monterey in favor of the "bigger, higher-profile, more decadent" Woodstock Festival, held two years later. But, as he notes:

text: Monterey Pop was a seminal event ... featuring debut performances of bands that would shape the history of rock and affect popular culture from that day forward. The County Fairgrounds in Monterey, California … had been home to folk, jazz and blues festivals for many years. But the weekend of June 16–18, 1967 was the first time it was used to showcase rock music.[citation needed]

text: The festival launched the careers of many who played there, making some of them into stars virtually overnight, including Janis Joplin,[26] Laura Nyro, Canned Heat, Otis Redding, Steve Miller, and Indian sitar maestro Ravi Shankar.

text: Monterey was also the first high-profile event to mix acts from major regional music centers in the U.S. – San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Memphis, Tennessee, and New York City – and it was the first time many of these bands had met each other in person. It was a particularly important meeting place for bands from the Bay Area and L.A., who had tended to regard each other with a degree of suspicion – Frank Zappa for one made no secret of his low regard for some of the San Francisco bands – and until that point the two scenes had been developing separately along fairly distinct lines. Paul Kantner of Jefferson Airplane said “The idea that San Francisco was heralding was a bit of freedom from oppression.”[27]

text: Monterey also marked a significant changing of the guard in British music. The Who and Eric Burdon and the Animals represented the UK, with the Beatles and the Rolling Stones conspicuously absent.[25] The Stones' Brian Jones wafted through the crowd, resplendent in full psychedelic regalia, and appeared on stage briefly to introduce Jimi Hendrix. It would be two more years before the Stones hit the road, by which time Jones was dead, and the Beatles never toured again. Meanwhile, the Who leapt into the breach and became the top British touring act of the period.

text: Also notable was the festival's innovative sound system, designed and built by audio engineer Abe Jacob, who started his career doing live sound for San Francisco bands and went on to become a leading sound designer for the American theater. Jacob's groundbreaking Monterey sound system was the progenitor of all the large-scale PAs that followed.[citation needed] It was a key factor in the festival's success and it was greatly appreciated by the artists—in the Monterey film, David Crosby can clearly be seen saying "Great sound system!" to bandmate Chris Hillman at the start of the Byrds' soundcheck. Lighting by Chip Monck attracted the attention of the Woodstock Festival promoters.[28]

text: Electronic music pioneers Paul Beaver and Bernie Krause set up a booth at Monterey to demonstrate the new electronic music synthesizer developed by Robert Moog.[29] Beaver and Krause had bought one of Moog's first synthesizers in 1966 and had spent a fruitless year trying to get someone in Hollywood interested in using it. Through their demonstration booth at Monterey, they gained the interest of acts including the Doors, the Byrds, the Rolling Stones, Simon & Garfunkel, and others. This quickly built into a steady stream of business, and the eccentric Beaver was soon one of the busiest session men in L.A. He and Krause earned a contract with Warner Brothers.

text: Eric Burdon and the Animals later that same year, in their hit "Monterey", quoted a line from the Byrds' song "Renaissance Fair" ("I think that maybe I'm dreamin'") and mentioned performers the Byrds, Jefferson Airplane, Ravi Shankar, Jimi Hendrix, the Who, Hugh Masekela, Grateful Dead, and the Rolling Stones' Brian Jones ("His Majesty Prince Jones smiled as he moved among the crowd"). The instruments used in the song imitate the styles of these performers.

text: Anniversary festival[edit]

text: The festival did not become an annual event. However, in 2017 on the fiftieth anniversary of the festival, the "Monterey International Pop Festival – Celebrates 50 Years" was held at the same venue on the same weekend, with the participation of Lou Adler. Nora Jones, daughter of Ravi Shankar, was one of the headliners.[30]

text: Recording and filming the festival[edit]

text: The festival was the subject of a documentary movie entitled Monterey Pop, by noted documentary filmmaker D.A. Pennebaker. Pennebaker's team used recently developed portable 16mm crystal-sync motion picture cameras that stayed synchronized with double-system sound-recording systems. The film stock was Eastman Kodak's recently released "high-speed" 16mm Ektachrome 100 ASA color reversal motion picture stock, without which the nighttime shows would have been virtually impossible to shoot in color. Sound was captured by Wally Heider's mobile studio on a then state-of-the art eight-channel recorder, with one track used for the crystal-sync tone, to synchronize it with the film cameras. The Grateful Dead believed that the film was too commercial and refused permission to be shown. The screening of the film in theaters nationwide helped raise the festival to mythic status, rapidly swelled the ranks of would-be festival-goers looking for the next festival, and inspired new entrepreneurs to stage more such festivals around the country.[11] Adler said the cameramen were instructed to capture at least 2 complete songs for most of the acts, but for certain others, particularly The Who and Hendrix, to film as much of the sets as possible. As a result, only one song was not captured in part at least from both act's performances.

text: Big Brother's scheduled set was not filmed due to a disagreement. However, due to the huge reaction the band got, they were asked to return to play two songs on Sunday, to be filmed specifically for the movie.

text: An expanded version of the documentary has been released on DVD and Blu-ray by the Criterion Collection.[31]

text: The audio recordings of the festival eventually became the basis for many albums, most notably the 1970 release Historic Performances Recorded at the Monterey International Pop Festival featuring partial sets by Otis Redding and Jimi Hendrix. Other releases recorded at the festival included dedicated live albums by the Grateful Dead, Jefferson Airplane and Shankar. In 1992, a four-CD box set was released featuring performances by most of the artists; various other compilations have been released over the years. According to a radio promotional feature that accompanied the box set release, on modified stages, including flatbed Kaleidscope (LA) trucks, set up in the surrounding environs, there had been several spontaneous jam sessions for the overflow crowds and campers. Among them was one at the Monterey Peninsula Community College sports stadium (right across the Hwy. 1 interchange), where Jimi Hendrix, flanked by Jorma Kaukonen and John Cipollina, played for an enthusiastic audience. It was also reported locally that Eric Burdon had checked out the provisions and healthcare facilities.

text: Moby Grape's Monterey recordings and film footage remain unreleased, allegedly because manager Matthew Katz demanded $1 million for the rights.[32]

text: Performers[edit]

text: Friday, June 16[edit]

text:
The Association
The Paupers
Lou Rawls[25]
Beverley
Johnny Rivers
Eric Burdon and The Animals
Simon & Garfunkel[25]

tag: ul

text: Saturday, June 17[edit]

text:
Canned Heat
Big Brother and the Holding Company[25]
Country Joe and the Fish
Al Kooper
The Butterfield Blues Band
The Electric Flag
Quicksilver Messenger Service
Steve Miller Band
Moby Grape
Hugh Masekela
The Byrds[25]
Laura Nyro
Jefferson Airplane[25]
Booker T. & the M.G.'s
The Mar-Keys
Otis Redding[25]

text: Sunday, June 18[edit]

text:
Ravi Shankar[25]
The Blues Project
Big Brother and the Holding Company
The Group With No Name
Buffalo Springfield (played w/ David Crosby)
The Who[25]
Grateful Dead
The Jimi Hendrix Experience[25]
Scott McKenzie
The Mamas & the Papas[25]


document_title: Cheshire Cat

question_text: when does the cheshire cat appear in alice in wonderland

text: Cheshire Cat

text: Origins[edit]

text: There are numerous theories about the origins of the phrase "grinning like a Cheshire Cat" in English history.

text:
A possible origin of the phrase is one favoured by the people of Cheshire, a county in England which boasts numerous dairy farms; hence the cats grin because of the abundance of milk and cream.[1]
According to Brewer's Dictionary, "The phrase has never been satisfactorily accounted for, but it has been said that cheese was formerly sold in Cheshire moulded like a cat that looked as though it was grinning".[2] The cheese was cut from the tail end, so that the last part eaten was the head of the smiling cat.[3]
In 1853, Samuel Maunder explained:

text: This phrase owes its origin to the unhappy attempts of a sign painter of that country to represent a lion rampant, which was the crest of an influential family, on the sign-boards of many of the inns. The resemblance of these lions to cats caused them to be generally called by the more ignoble name. A similar case is to be found in the village of Charlton, between Pewsey and Devizes, Wiltshire. A public-house by the roadside is commonly known by the name of The Cat at Charlton. The sign of the house was originally a lion or tiger, or some such animal, the crest of the family of Sir Edward Poore.[4]

text:
Its first appearance in literature was in the 18th century. A classical dictionary of the vulgar tongue (1788) by Francis Grose (The Second Edition, Corrected and Enlarged, London) contains the following entry: "CHESHIRE CAT. He grins like a Cheshire cat; said of any one who shows his teeth and gums in laughing."
The phrase appears again in print in John Wolcot's pseudonymous Peter Pindar's Pair of Lyric Epistles (1792): "Lo, like a Cheshire cat our court will grin."
The phrase also appears in print in William Makepeace Thackeray's The Newcomes (1855) ("That woman grins like a Cheshire cat.").

text: A survey published in 2015 showed how highly fanciful were so many purported explanations seen on the internet.[5] The expression was finally explained as an amalgam of the widely-used phrase ‘grinning like a cat that got the [spilt] cream’ which could apply to any part of the country (although Cheshire was the pre-eminent milk, cheese and cream producing county for several centuries) with Cheshire’s unique political situation. On their own, either of these would have been something to grin about. Importantly, the county was described as a ‘palatinate’ from the 1290s and was promoted to be Principality in 1397 following the support its men gave King Richard II. No other English county has been honoured in this way or was accorded such unusually wide privileges, including its own ‘borderland’ laws and taxes, and a considerable measure of independence from national government into the sixteenth century. These privileges attracted many who (in the recent words of an eminent professor of medieval history[6]) ‘arrived as fugitives from justice and this seems to have become the principle motivation [for escaping to Cheshire from the Kings laws] as the Middle Ages wore on.’ Once safely across the border into the palatine’s jurisdiction, these transgressors could grin cheekily at any pursuing King’s Sheriffs - and 'disappear' into the countryside. Certainly, dictionaries show the word ‘caitiff’ derived from Old French or Anglo-Norman in terms such as ‘cowardly or base villain’ or ‘mean despicable fellow’, and with its diminutive ‘cat’ meaning ‘a ‘sharp’ fellow’[7] [8]- as utilize in today’s jazz idioms.

text: Lewis Carroll's character[edit]

text: The Cheshire Cat is now largely identified with the character of the same name in Lewis Carroll's novel Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. Alice first encounters the Cheshire Cat at the Duchess's house in her kitchen, and later on the branches of a tree, where it appears and disappears at will, and engages Alice in amusing but sometimes perplexing conversation. The cat sometimes raises philosophical points that annoy or baffle Alice; but appears to cheer her when it appears suddenly at the Queen of Hearts' croquet field; and when sentenced to death, baffles everyone by having made its head appear without its body, sparking a debate between the executioner and the King and Queen of Hearts about whether a disembodied head can indeed be beheaded. At one point, the cat disappears gradually until nothing is left but its grin, prompting Alice to remark that "she has often seen a cat without a grin but never a grin without a cat".[9]

text: According to recent analysis by scholar David Day, Lewis Carroll's cat was Edward Bouverie Pusey, Oxford professor of Hebrew, and Carroll's mentor.[10]

text: The name Pusey was suggested by Alice's deferential address of the cat as "Cheshire Puss". Pusey was an authority on the fathers of the Christian Church, and in Carroll's time Pusey was known as the Patristic Catenary (or chain), after the chain of authority of Church patriarchs. As a mathematician, Carroll would have been well familiar with the other meaning of catenary: the curve of a horizontally-suspended chain, which suggests the shape of the cat's grin.[11]

text:
RIDDLE: What kind of a cat can grin?
ANSWER: A Catenary.

text: Source of imagery[edit]

text: There are many other suggestions that Carroll found inspiration for the name and expression of the Cheshire Cat in the 16th century sandstone carving of a grinning cat, on the west face of St Wilfrid's Church tower in Grappenhall, a village adjacent to his birthplace in Daresbury, Cheshire.[citation needed]

text: Lewis Carroll's father, Reverend Charles Dodgson, was Rector of Croft and Archdeacon of Richmond in North Yorkshire, England, from 1843 to 1868; Carroll lived here from 1843 to 1850.[12] Historians believe Lewis Carroll's Cheshire Cat in the book Alice in Wonderland was inspired by a carving in Croft church.[13]

text: Another possible inspiration was the British Shorthair: Carroll saw a representative British Shorthair illustrated on a label of Cheshire cheese.[14] The Cat Fanciers' Association profile reads: "When gracelessness is observed, the British Shorthair is duly embarrassed, quickly recovering with a 'Cheshire cat smile'”.[15]

text: In 1992, members of the Lewis Carroll Society attributed it to a gargoyle found on a pillar in St Nicolas Church, Cranleigh, where Carroll used to travel frequently when he lived in Guildford (though this is doubtful as he moved to Guildford some three years after Alice's Adventures in Wonderland had been published) and a carving in a church in the village of Croft-on-Tees, in the north east of England, where his father had been rector.[16]

text: Carroll is believed[according to whom?] to have visited St. Christopher's church in Pott Shrigley, Cheshire, which has a stone sculpture most closely resembling the pictorial cat in the book."St. Christopher's Church, Pott Schrigley History". Retrieved 2017-10-10.

text: Adaptions[edit]

text: The Cheshire Cat character has been re-depicted by other creators and used as the inspiration for new characters, primarily in screen media (film, television, video games) and print media (literature, comics, art). Other non-media contexts that embrace the Cheshire Cat include music, business, and science.

text: Prior to 1951 when Walt Disney released an animated adaptation of the story (see below), there were few post-Alice allusions to the character. Martin Gardner, author of The Annotated Alice, wondered if T. S. Eliot had the Cheshire Cat in mind when writing Morning at the Window, but notes no other significant allusions in the pre-war period.[17]

text: Images of and references to the Cheshire Cat cropped up with increasing frequency in the 1960s and 1970s, along with more frequent references to Carroll's works in general. (See generally the lyrics to White Rabbit by the rock group Jefferson Airplane).[18][19] The Cheshire Cat appeared on LSD blotters, as well as in song lyrics and popular fiction.[20][21]

text: In the 1951 Disney animated film, Alice in Wonderland, the Cheshire Cat is depicted as an intelligent and mischievous character that sometimes helps Alice and sometimes gets her into trouble. He frequently sings the first verse of the Jabberwocky poem. The animated character was voiced by Sterling Holloway (Alice in Wonderland) and Jim Cummings (2004–present).

text: In the 1985 television adaptation of Carroll's books, the Cheshire Cat is voiced by Telly Savalas. He sings a morose song called "There's No Way Home," which simply drives Alice to try and find a way home even more.

text: In the 1999 television adaptation of Carroll's books, the Cheshire Cat is voiced by Whoopi Goldberg. She acts as an ally and friend to Alice.

text: The Cheshire Cat appears in Walt Disney's 2010 Alice in Wonderland, directed by Tim Burton. British actor Stephen Fry voices the character.[22] In the movie, Cheshire (as he is often called; or sometimes "Chess") binds the wound Alice suffered earlier by the Bandersnatch and guides her to Tarrant Hightopp, the Mad Hatter and Thackery Earwicket, the March Hare. He is blamed by the Hatter for desertion when the White Queen is deposed by the Red; but later impersonates the Hatter when the latter is sentenced to decapitation. Throughout his appearances, "Chess" is able to make himself intangible or weightless, as well as invisible (and thus to survive decapitation), and is usually shown in mid-air, at shoulder-height to human-sized characters.[23] In the video game adaptation of the movie, Chess is a playable character who can not only turn himself invisible, but other objects around him as well.

text: Cross-film comparison[edit]

text: Each major film adaptation of Lewis Carroll's tale represents the Cheshire Cat character and his traits uniquely.

text:
Screen Media Adaptation
Distribution Medium
Cheshire Cat's Appearance
Cheshire Cat's Behavior
Image

Alice in Wonderland
(1951 film)[24]
Film (Alice in Wonderland, traditional animation by Walt Disney Studios)[24]
Thick build and a primarily pink coat with purple stripes. Wide smile and close-set, piercing yellow eyes. Character always depicted in good lighting with strong visibility, unlike other adaptations which obscure or shadow him
Mischievous, and takes pleasure in misdirecting Alice. He is able to dislocate his head from his body (does so in jest), but is also capable of invisibility, and frequently enters and exits the scene with all parts faded away except for his grin or eyes.

Adventures in Wonderland
(1991 TV show)[25]
Televised broadcast (Adventures in Wonderland, TV series through 1995)[25]
Closer resemblance to a tiger or lioness than a house cat. Coat has a white base with stripes painted in a violet accent color. Form possesses human-like mouth and facial structure
A sarcastic and playful rendition of the character. In this adaptation, the Cheshire Cat has the ability to appear and disappear in any location. He is quick to play practical jokes on other the characters in the show.

Alice in Wonderland
(1999 made-for-TV movie)[26]
Television Film[26]
A fluffy grey cat with a human face and feline features.
A grinning cat who teaches Alice "the rules" of Wonderland. Her favorite pastime is appearing and disappearing.

Alice in Wonderland
(2010 film)[27]
Film (Alice in Wonderland, live-action directed by Tim Burton)[27]
More slender build, with a round head and grey/green coat with several blue/black stripes. Bright aqua eyes (with slit-shaped pupils) and prominent teeth. Often more backlit than other adaptations, with only a faint, luminescent glow (self-generated) bringing his features into view.
Disappearing and reappearing at will, and able even to change his size, levitate himself, assume the appearances of other characters, and become intangible at will. The cat plays a few jokes and toys with the other characters, but is helpful on a few occasions. He speaks in a slow and fluid manner.

text: In addition to the Cheshire Cat's appearances in films central to its Lewis Carroll origins, the Cheshire Cat has been featured in other cinematic works. The late filmmaker Chris Marker gave his monumental documentary on the New Left movement of 1967–1977, Le fond de l'air est rouge (1977), the English title Grin Without a Cat. Like the original, it signifies that revolution was in the air, but failed to take root. In the film, it is also stated: a spearhead without a spear, a grin without a catThe Cheshire Cat has been seen by television audiences in a broadcast spin-off. The Cheshire Cat appears in Once Upon a Time in Wonderland (a spin-off of Once Upon a Time) voiced by Keith David.[28] While looking for the Mad Hatter's house from the trees, Alice encounters the Cheshire Cat in giant form where the Red Queen had promised him that Alice would be good food for him. Both of them ended up engaging each other in combat until the Knave of Hearts arrived and threw a piece of one mushroom side into his mouth, which shrank him back to normal size as the Cheshire Cat leaves.

text: The Cheshire Cat appears as an avatar character in several the video games American McGee's Alice (2000); and the sequel Alice: Madness Returns (2011), the Cheshire Cat is portrayed as an enigmatic, yet wise guide for Alice in the corrupted Wonderland. In keeping with the twisted tone of the game, the Cheshire Cat is mangy and emaciated in appearance. His voice was provided by Roger L. Jackson, who also voiced the Mad Hatter and The Jabberwock in the game.

text: In science[edit]

text: Cheshire Cat is used as a metaphor to explain several scientific phenomena:

text:
The Cheshire Cat effect, as described by Sally Duensing and Bob Miller, is a binocular rivalry which causes stationary objects seen in one eye to disappear from view when an object in motion crosses in front of the other eye.[29] Each eye sees two different views of the world, sends those images to the visual cortex where they are combined, and creates a three-dimensional image. The Cheshire Cat effect occurs when one eye is fixated on a stationary object, while the other notices something moving. Since one eye is seeing a moving object, the brain will focus on it, causing parts of the stationary object to fade away from vision entirely.[30]
In another scientific context, catalytic RNAs have been deemed Cheshire cats. This metaphor is used to describe the fading of the ribonucleotide construct, which leaves behind a smile of only the mineral components of the RNA catalyst.[31]
Similarly, the Cheshire Cat has been used out of its traditional context to help define another scientific phenomenon, the "Cheshire Cat" escape strategy. When Coccolithophore – a species of successful ocean algae – is able to resist the haploid phase of its life cycle it escapes meiosis and its dominant diploid genes are passed on in a virus-free environment, freeing the host from the danger of infection during reproduction.[32] The algae escape death (beheading) by means of disappearance (vanishing his head):

text: ...[T]aken from Lewis Carroll, we liken this theory to the strategy used by the Cheshire Cat in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland of making its body invisible to make the sentence "off with his head" pronounced by the Queen of Hearts impossible to execute...CC dynamics, which rely to some extent on separation of the sexual processes of meiosis and fusion in time and/or space, release the host from short-term pathogen pressure, thus widening the scope for the host to evolve in other directions.

text:
Other gestures to the Cheshire Cat's tropes of disappearance and mystique have been seen in scientific literature coming from the field of Physics. "The Cheshire Cat" is a phenomenon in quantum mechanics in which a particle and its property behave as if they are separated,[33] or when a particle separates from one of its physical properties.[34] To test this idea, researchers used an interferometer where neutron beams passed through silicon crystal. The crystal physically separated the neutrons and allowed them to go to two paths. Researchers reported "the system behaves as if the neutrons go through one beam path, while their magnetic moment travels along the other."[34]
The Cheshire cat's grin has inspired scientists in their naming of visual phenomena. A merger of galaxy groups in the constellation Ursa Major is nicknamed "Cheshire Cat galaxy group" by Astronomers due to its suggestive appearance.[35]
In linguistics, cheshirization, when a sound disappears but leaves a trace, just like the cat disappears but leaves his grin.

text: Notes[edit]

text:
Jump up ^ "Cheshire cat – Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary". merriam-webster.com. 2011. Retrieved 8 August 2011.
Jump up ^ As stated in Martin Gardner's Annotated Alice
Jump up ^ Gardner, Martin (1999). The Annotated Alice: Alice's adventures in Wonderland & Through the looking glass. W.W. Norton. ISBN 0-393-04847-0.
Jump up ^ Samuel Maunder, The Treasury of Knowledge and Library Reference, Edition 12 Publisher: Longman, Orme, Brown, Green, & Longmans, 1853, page 396
Jump up ^ Young, Peter. "Origins of the Cheshire Cat". Cheshire History. 55 (2015-6): pp.184-193. CS1 maint: Extra text (link)
Jump up ^ White, Graeme J (2015). The Magna Carta of Cheshire. London. p. 39.
Jump up ^ Chambers (1972). Twentieth Century Dictionary. London.
Jump up ^ Collins (2003). English Dictionary. London.
Jump up ^ Annotated Alice; the statement "a grin without a cat" is a reference to mathematics dissociating itself completely from the natural world.
Jump up ^ Day, David (2010). "Oxford in Wonderland". Queen's Quarterly. 117 (3): 402–423.
Jump up ^ Day, David (24 August 2015). "The Cheshire Cat's Grin: Solving the greatest mystery of Wonderland, 150 years later". The Walrus.
Jump up ^ Clark, Ann (1979). Lewis Carroll: A Biography. London: J. M. Dent & Sons. ISBN 0-460-04302-1.
Jump up ^ Gardner, Martin (2000). The Annotated Alice: The Definitive Edition. New York / London: W.W. Norton and Company. p. 62. ISBN 0-393-04847-0.
Jump up ^ Stewart, Ian (2010). Professor Stewart's Hoard of Mathematical Treasures. Profile Books. p. 67.
Jump up ^ Geyer, Georgie Anne. When Cats Reigned Like Kings: On the Trail of the Sacred Cats. Transaction Publishers. p. 219.
Jump up ^ "Cheshire Cat found by fans of Lewis Carroll". The Toronto Star. Toronto ON. Reuters. 8 July 1992. p. C24.
Jump up ^ Gardner, Martin (1999). The Annotated Alice: Alice's adventures in Wonderland & Through the looking glass. W.W. Norton. p. 62. ISBN 0-393-04847-0.
Jump up ^ Brooker, Will (2004). Alice's Adventures: Lewis Carroll and Alice in Popular Culture. London: Continuum. p. 81. ISBN 0-8264-1433-8. Retrieved 7 July 2008.
Jump up ^ Roos, Michael (1984). "The Walrus and the Deacon: John Lennon's Debt to Lewis Carroll". Journal of Popular Culture. 18 (1): 19–29. doi:10.1111/j.0022-3840.1984.1801_19.x.
Jump up ^ St Clair, Vanessa (5 June 2001). "A girl like Alice". The Guardian. UK.
Jump up ^ Real, Willi (2003). "The Use of Literary Quotations and Allusions in: Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451". Retrieved 7 July 2008.
Jump up ^ Boshoff, Alison (20 February 2010). "Alice's very weird wonderland: Why a behind-the-scenes row might see Tim Burton's most fantastical film yet disappear from cinemas as fast as the Cheshire Cat". Daily Mail. London: Associated Newspapers. Archived from the original on 15 November 2010. Retrieved 21 February 2010.
Jump up ^ "Alice in Wonderland – Glossary of Terms/Script (early draft)" (PDF). Walt Disney Pictures. JoBlo.com. Archived (PDF) from the original on 15 November 2010. Retrieved 30 March 2010.  (early draft of the film script, first started February 2007)
^ Jump up to: a b "Alice in Wonderland (1951 film)". IMBD. Retrieved 2 October 2014.
^ Jump up to: a b "Adventures in Wonderland (1991 TV show)". IMDB. Retrieved 2 October 2014.
^ Jump up to: a b "Alice in Wonderland (TV Movie 1999)". Retrieved 5 October 2014.
^ Jump up to: a b "Alice in Wonderland (2010 film)". IMBD. Retrieved 2 October 2014.
Jump up ^ Mitovich, Matt Webb (5 September 2013). "Once Upon a Time in Wonderland Exclusive: Keith David to Voice Cheshire Cat".
Jump up ^ Duensing, Sally; Miller, Bob (1979). "The Cheshire Cat effect". Perception. 8 (3): 269–273. doi:10.1068/p080269.
Jump up ^ "Cheshire Cat: Perception Science Project". Exploratorium Science Snacks. Retrieved 18 September 2014.
Jump up ^ Yarus, Michael (1993). "How many catalytic RNAs? Ions and the Cheshire cat conjecture". The FASEB Journal. 7 (1): 31–39. PMID 8422972. Retrieved 24 September 2014.
Jump up ^ Frada, Miguel; et al. (2008). "The 'Cheshire Cat' escape strategy of the coccolithophore Emiliania huxleyi in response to viral infection". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 105 (41): 15944–15949. doi:10.1073/pnas.0807707105. PMC 2572935 . PMID 18824682.
Jump up ^ Denkmayr, T; Geppert, H; Sponar, S; Lemmel, H; Matzkin, A; Tollaksen, J; Hasegawa, Y (29 July 2014). "Observation of a quantum Cheshire Cat in a matter-wave interferometer experiment". Nature Communications. 5: 4492. doi:10.1038/ncomms5492. PMC 4124860 . PMID 25072171. Retrieved 18 September 2014.
^ Jump up to: a b Morgan, James. "'Quantum Cheshire Cat' becomes reality". BBC News. BBC. Retrieved 24 September 2014.
Jump up ^ "Astronomy Picture of the Day". 27 November 2015.

tag: ol


document_title: Standin' on the Corner Park

question_text: song standing on the corner in winslow arizona

text: Standin' on the Corner Park

text:
Standin' on the Corner Park
Standin' on the Corner Park, a tribute to the Jackson Browne/Glenn Frey song "Take It Easy"Type
MunicipalLocation
Winslow, ArizonaCoordinates
35°1′24.54″N 110°41′53.03″W / 35.0234833°N 110.6980639°W / 35.0234833; -110.6980639Created
1999Operated by
Standin' on the Corner in Winslow, Arizona Park CommitteeStatus
Open all year

text: Standin' on the Corner Park (opened in 1999 in Winslow, Arizona). It is a public park, commemorating the song "Take It Easy" which was written by Jackson Browne and Glenn Frey and most famously recorded by the Eagles. The song includes the verse "Well, I'm a standing on a corner in Winslow, Arizona and such a fine sight to see. It's a girl, my Lord, in a flatbed Ford slowin' down to take a look at me." The park contains a two-story trompe-l'œil mural by John Pugh, and a bronze statue by Ron Adamson[1] of a life-sized man who is standing on a corner with a guitar by his side. The park is surrounded by a wall of bricks, with windows to peer into; each brick has a donor's name on it, and a story by each of the donors describing their fondness for Winslow, Arizona.[2]

text: History[edit]

text: Until the 1960s, Winslow was a thriving town in northern Arizona just off Route 66. Construction of the $7.7 million bypass around Winslow began soon after 1977.[3] When I-40 bypassed the community many local businesses disappeared, the tourism sector being among the hardest hit. While some local jobs remained (as Winslow is the base of operation for one thousand railroad workers), the local downtown was badly hurt by the influx of national chains (such as Walmart and McDonald's) along the new interstate highway to the north of the town.[4] Twenty years passed and Winslow was stuck in a commercial rut.

text: Winslow was the next to last town to be bypassed... We would watch hundreds of trucks roll by day and night. Then one morning, they opened (I-40) and everything stopped. For about 20 years, nobody knew what to do.

text: In 1997, the La Posada Hotel (a former Harvey House on the Santa Fe Railroad, long at risk for demolition) was restored and reopened. Listing of La Posada Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places served as a first step toward re-awakening the town.

text: The Standin' on the Corner Foundation was formed to create a renaissance of Winslow. Determined to build on tourism, the foundation took advantage of the town being mentioned in the song "Take It Easy" made famous by the Eagles. From 1997 until 1999, the foundation was busy finding donors and planning design concepts. On September 10 and 11, 1999 the park was opened to the public.[2]

text: The 2006 release of animated film Cars brought renewed attention to the efforts to save local U.S. Route 66 main street businesses in towns long bypassed. While Winslow itself is not depicted on-screen, the movie's credits list both La Posada Hotel and Diane Patterson's souvenir shop at Standin' on the Corner Park among the many Mother Road locations at which Pixar studio personnel conducted exhaustive interviews as part of extensive research for the film.

text: On October 18, 2004, there was a fire at the Standin' on the Corner Park.  While the face of the building and the actual corner survived, the rest of the building was burned down.[5]

text: In September 2016, a statue was unveiled at the park in the likeness of Glenn Frey, who died earlier that year.[6]


document_title: Article Three of the United States Constitution

question_text: who establishes the courts lower than the supreme court

text: Section 1: Federal courts[edit]

text: Section 1 vests the judicial power of the United States in federal courts, requires a supreme court, allows inferior courts, requires good behavior tenure for judges, and prohibits decreasing the salaries of judges.

text: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

text: Number of courts[edit]

text: Article III authorizes one Supreme Court, but does not set the number of justices that must be appointed to it. Article I, Section 3, Clause 6 refers to a Chief Justice (who shall preside over the impeachment trial of a President). The number of justices is fixed by statute at nine: the one chief justice, and eight associate justices.[1]

text: Proposals to divide the Supreme Court into separate panels have been made, but all have failed. Because all such proposals have failed, the Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of such a division. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote, "the Constitution does not appear to authorize two or more Supreme Courts functioning in effect as separate courts."

text: The Supreme Court is the only federal court that is explicitly mandated by the Constitution. During the Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made for the Supreme Court to be the only federal court, having both original jurisdiction and appellate jurisdiction. This proposal was rejected in favor of the provision that exists today. Under this provision, the Congress may create inferior (i.e., lower) courts under both Article III, Section 1, and Article I, Section 8. The Article III courts, which are also known as "constitutional courts", were first created by the Judiciary Act of 1789. Article I courts, which are also known as "legislative courts", consist of regulatory agencies, such as the United States Tax Court. Article III courts are the only ones with judicial power, and so decisions of regulatory agencies remain subject to review by Article III courts. However, cases not requiring "judicial determination" may come before Article I courts. In the case of Murray's Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co. 59 U.S. 272 (1855), the Supreme Court ruled that cases involving "a suit at the common law, or in equity, or admiralty" inherently involve judicial determination and must come before Article III courts. Other cases, such as bankruptcy cases, have been held not to involve judicial determination, and may therefore go before Article I courts. Similarly, several courts in the District of Columbia, which is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Congress, are Article I courts rather than Article III courts. This article was expressly extended to the United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico by the U.S. Congress through Federal Law 89-571, 80 Stat. 764, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1966. This transformed the article IV United States territorial court in Puerto Rico, created in 1900, to an Article III federal judicial district court.

text: The Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937—frequently called the court-packing plan,[2]— was a legislative initiative to add more justices to the Supreme Court proposed by U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt shortly after his victory in the 1936 presidential election. Although the bill aimed generally to overhaul and modernize all of the federal court system, its central and most controversial provision would have granted the President power to appoint an additional Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court for every sitting member over the age of 70½, up to a maximum of six.

text: The Constitution is silent when it comes to judges of courts which have been abolished. The Judiciary Act of 1801 increased the number of courts to permit the Federalist President John Adams to appoint a number of Federalist judges before Thomas Jefferson took office. When Jefferson became President, the Congress abolished several of these courts and made no provision for the judges of those courts. Judicial Code of 1911 abolished "circuit riding" and transferred the circuit courts authority and jurisdiction to the district courts.

text: Tenure[edit]

text: The Constitution provides that judges "shall hold their Offices during good Behavior." The term "good behavior" is interpreted to mean that judges may serve for the remainder of their lives, although they may resign or retire voluntarily. A judge may also be removed by impeachment and conviction by congressional vote (hence the term good behavior); this has occurred fourteen times. Three other judges, Mark W. Delahay,[3] George W. English,[4] and Samuel B. Kent,[5] chose to resign rather than go through the impeachment process.

text: Salaries[edit]

text: The compensation of judges may not be decreased, but may be increased, during their continuance in office.

text: Section 2: Judicial power, jurisdiction, and trial by jury[edit]

text: Section 2 delineates federal judicial power, and brings that power into execution by conferring original jurisdiction and also appellate jurisdiction upon the Supreme Court. Additionally, this section requires trial by jury in all criminal cases, except impeachment cases.

text: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

text: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

text: Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

text: Clause 1: Cases and controversies[edit]

text: Clause 1 of Section 2 authorizes the federal courts to hear actual cases and controversies only. Their judicial power does not extend to cases which are hypothetical, or which are proscribed due to standing, mootness, or ripeness issues. Generally, a case or controversy requires the presence of adverse parties who have a genuine interest at stake in the case. In Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346 (1911), the Supreme Court denied jurisdiction to cases brought under a statute permitting certain Native Americans to bring suit against the United States to determine the constitutionality of a law allocating tribal lands. Counsel for both sides were to be paid from the federal Treasury. The Supreme Court held that, though the United States was a defendant, the case in question was not an actual controversy; rather, the statute was merely devised to test the constitutionality of a certain type of legislation. Thus the Court's ruling would be nothing more than an advisory opinion; therefore, the court dismissed the suit for failing to present a "case or controversy."

text: A significant omission is that although Clause 1 provides that federal judicial power shall extend to "the laws of the United States," it does not also provide that it shall extend to the laws of the several or individual states. In turn, the Judiciary Act of 1789 and subsequent acts never granted the U.S. Supreme Court the power to review decisions of state supreme courts on pure issues of state law. It is this silence which tacitly made state supreme courts the final expositors of the common law in their respective states. They were free to diverge from English precedents and from each other on the vast majority of legal issues which had never been made part of federal law by the Constitution, and the U.S. Supreme Court could do nothing about that, as it would ultimately concede in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins (1938). By way of contrast, other English-speaking federations like Australia and Canada never adopted the Erie doctrine. That is, their highest courts have always possessed plenary power to impose a uniform nationwide common law upon all lower courts and never adopted the strong American distinction between federal and state common law.

text: Eleventh Amendment and state sovereign immunity[edit]

text: In Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793), the Supreme Court ruled that Article III, Section 2 abrogated the States’ sovereign immunity and authorized federal courts to hear disputes between private citizens and States. This decision was overturned by the Eleventh Amendment, which was passed by the Congress on March 4, 1794 1 Stat. 402 and ratified by the states on February 7, 1795. It prohibits the federal courts from hearing any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.[6]

text: Clause 2: Original and appellate jurisdiction[edit]

text: Clause 2 of Section 2 provides that the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases affecting ambassadors, ministers and consuls, and also in those controversies which are subject to federal judicial power because at least one state is a party; the Court has held that the latter requirement is met if the United States has a controversy with a state.[7][8] In other cases, the Supreme Court has only appellate jurisdiction, which may be regulated by the Congress. The Congress may not, however, amend the Court's original jurisdiction, as was found in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (Cranch 1) 137 (1803) (the same decision which established the principle of judicial review). Marbury held that Congress can neither expand nor restrict the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. However, the appellate jurisdiction of the Court is different. The Court's appellate jurisdiction is given "with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

text: Often a court will assert a modest degree of power over a case for the threshold purpose of determining whether it has jurisdiction, and so the word "power" is not necessarily synonymous with the word "jurisdiction".[9][10]

text: Judicial review[edit]

text: The power of the federal judiciary to review the constitutionality of a statute or treaty, or to review an administrative regulation for consistency with either a statute, a treaty, or the Constitution itself, is an implied power derived in part from Clause 2 of Section 2.[11]

text: Though the Constitution does not expressly provide that the federal judiciary has the power of judicial review, many of the Constitution's Framers viewed such a power as an appropriate power for the federal judiciary to possess. In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote,

text: The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution, is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.[12]

text: Others, however, disagreed, claiming that each branch could determine for itself the constitutionality of its actions.

text: A continuation of the text of Federalist No. 78 by Hamilton [below] counterbalances the tone of "judicial supremacists" who demand that both Congress and the Executive are compelled by the Constitution to enforce all court decisions, including those that, in their eyes, or those of the People, violate fundamental American principles.

text: Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.[12] [emphasis added]

text: Hamilton continues. . .

text: It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body.[12] [emphasis added]

text: Marbury v. Madison involved a highly partisan set of circumstances. Though Congressional elections were held in November 1800, the newly elected officers did not take power until March. The Federalist Party had lost the elections. In the words of President Thomas Jefferson, the Federalists "retired into the judiciary as a stronghold". In the four months following the elections, the outgoing Congress created several new judgeships, which were filled by President John Adams. In the last-minute rush, however, Federalist Secretary of State John Marshall had neglected to deliver 17 of the commissions to their respective appointees. When James Madison took office as Secretary of State, several commissions remained undelivered. Bringing their claims under the Judiciary Act of 1789, the appointees, including William Marbury, petitioned the Supreme Court for the issue of a writ of mandamus, which in English law had been used to force public officials to fulfill their ministerial duties. Here, Madison would be required to deliver the commissions.

text: Marbury posed a difficult problem for the court, which was then led by Chief Justice John Marshall, the same person who had neglected to deliver the commissions when he was the Secretary of State. If Marshall's court commanded James Madison to deliver the commissions, Madison might ignore the order, thereby indicating the weakness of the court. Similarly, if the court denied William Marbury's request, the court would be seen as weak. Marshall held that appointee Marbury was indeed entitled to his commission. However, Justice Marshall contended that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was unconstitutional, since it purported to grant original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court in cases not involving the States or ambassadors[citation needed]. The ruling thereby established that the federal courts could exercise judicial review over the actions of Congress or the executive branch.

text: However, Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78, expressed the view that the Courts hold only the power of words, and not the power of compulsion upon those other two branches of government, upon which the Supreme Court is itself dependent. Then in 1820, Thomas Jefferson expressed his deep reservations about the doctrine of judicial review:

text: You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.[13]

text: Clause 3: Federal trials[edit]

text: Clause 3 of Section 2 provides that Federal crimes, except impeachment cases, must be tried before a jury, unless the defendant waives his right. Also, the trial must be held in the state where the crime was committed. If the crime was not committed in any particular state, then the trial is held in such a place as set forth by the Congress. The United States Senate has the sole power to try impeachment cases.[14]

text: Two of the Constitutional Amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights contain related provisions. The Sixth Amendment enumerates the rights of individuals when facing criminal prosecution and the Seventh Amendment establishes an individual's right to a jury trial in certain civil cases. It also inhibits courts from overturning a jury's findings of fact. The Supreme Court has extended the protections of these amendments to individuals facing trial in state courts through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

text: Section 3: Treason[edit]

text: Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.

text: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

text: The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

text: The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby crimes including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war."[15]

text: Under English law effective during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, including the Treason Act 1351, there were essentially five species of treason.[citation needed] Of the five, the Constitution adopted only two: levying war and adhering to enemies. Omitted were species of treason involving encompassing (or imagining) the death of the king, certain types of counterfeiting, and finally fornication with women in the royal family of the sort which could call into question the parentage of royal successors. James Wilson wrote the original draft of this section, and he was involved as a defense attorney for some accused of treason against the Patriot cause.

text: Section 3 also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same overt act, or a confession by the accused in open court, to convict for treason. This rule was derived from an older English statute, the Treason Act 1695.[16]

text: In Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945), the Supreme Court ruled that "[e]very act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses."[17] In Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent, nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses and federal agents investigating the crime, for example).

text: Punishment for treason may not "work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person" so convicted. The descendants of someone convicted for treason could not, as they were under English law, be considered "tainted" by the treason of their ancestor. Furthermore, Congress may confiscate the property of traitors, but that property must be inheritable at the death of the person convicted.

text: In Federalist No. 43 James Madison wrote regarding the Treason Clause:

text: As treason may be committed against the United States, the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it. But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing it, from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its author.

text: Based on the above quotation, it was noted by the lawyer William J. Olson in an amicus curiae in the case Hedges v. Obama that the Treason Clause was one of the enumerated powers of the federal government.[18] He also stated that by defining treason in the U.S. Constitution and placing it in Article III "the founders intended the power to be checked by the judiciary, ruling out trials by military commissions. As James Madison noted, the Treason Clause also was designed to limit the power of the federal government to punish its citizens for “adhering to [the] enemies [of the United States by], giving them aid and comfort.”"[18]


document_title: Redistricting

question_text: who controls the redistricting process in most states

text: Redistricting

text: Legislative representatives[edit]

text: In 28 states, the state legislature has primary responsibility for creating a redistricting plan, in many cases subject to approval by the state governor. To reduce the role that legislative politics might play, twelve states (Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Washington) determine congressional redistricting by an independent or bipartisan redistricting commission.[1] Five states: Maine, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia give independent bodies authority to propose redistricting plans, but preserve the role of legislatures to approve them. Arkansas has a commission composed of its governor, attorney general, and secretary of state.  Seven states have only a single representative for the entire state because of their low populations; these are Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming.

text: State constitutions and laws also mandate which body has responsibility over drawing the state legislature boundaries.[2] In addition, those municipal governments that are elected on a district basis (as opposed to at-large) also redistrict.

text: Each state has its own standards for creating Congressional and legislative districts.[3] In addition to  equalizing the population of districts and complying with Federal requirements, criteria may include attempting to create compact, contiguous districts, trying to keep political units and communities within a single district, and avoiding the drawing of boundaries for purposes of partisan advantage or incumbent protection.[4] In the states where the legislature (or another body where a partisan majority is possible) is in charge of redistricting, the possibility of gerrymandering (the deliberate manipulation of political boundaries for electoral advantage, usually of incumbents or a specific political party) often makes the process very politically contentious, especially when the majorities of the two houses of the legislature, or the legislature and the governor, are from different parties. The state and federal court systems are often involved in resolving disputes over Congressional and legislative redistricting when gridlock prevents redistricting in a timely manner. In addition, the losers to an adopted redistricting plan often challenge it in state and federal courts. Justice Department approval (which is known as pre-clearance) was formerly required under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in certain states that have had a history of racial barriers to voting.

text: Partisan domination of state legislatures and improved technology to design contiguous districts that pack opponents into as few districts as possible have led to district maps which are skewed towards one party. Consequently, many states including Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Texas have succeeded in reducing or effectively eliminating competition for most House seats in those states.[citation needed]

text: Other states including California, New Jersey and New York have opted to protect incumbents of both parties, reducing the number of competitive districts.[citation needed] The Supreme Court's ruling on the Pennsylvania redistricting effectively allows elected officials to select their constituents by eliminating most of the grounds for constituents to challenge district lines.[5]

text: Redistricting may follow other criteria depending on State and Local governments:[6]

text:
compactness
contiguity
equal population
preservation of existing political communities
partisan fairness
racial fairness [7]

text: Esri has offered its services as a platform for redestricting to allow for complete government transparency. Since the process of redistricting is intrinsically linked to geography, GIS can address this issue effectively.[6]

text: Gerrymandering[edit]

text: Gerrymandering is the practice of drawing district lines to achieve political gain for legislators.  The practice of gerrymandering involves the manipulation of district drawing in aims to leave out, or include, specific populations in a legislator's district to ensure his/her reelection.